Integral Technologies Inc. (fka ITKG)

[kPod]

On ITKG brand and some thoughts.

Hello everyone.

I wrote only a few posts right after joining the iHub and was surprised of the response that my post on why I am an investor received.

By the way, I laughed hard when someone accused that another person used my nickname as one of his aliases. I was at a public computer at the time in school and didn't log in, but by the time I returned home, the post was deleted and there was nothing to respond to.

---

My oppinion on the whole matter of poster polarity is that most people on this forum balance between the two extremes. We are all eager to find out more concrete news. Certain things ITKG do make perfect sense and some others leave me wondering, why an opportunity to increase the brand recognition was not used more thoroughly (like the most under-used CES showing). Why did they not also present a cell phone, one of those that Mr. Aisenbrey is supposedly using?

I have a feeling ITKG might have a management/staff that is currently much more technical than marketing-oriented. Another thing is their love for the technology. I am sure it is their child, to them it is omnipotent, and possibly the greatest thing that has ever happened to them. This on one hand is positive as it's giving them the necessary drive (a simple metaphor: it's weekend, 11pm and something needs to be done, they will not think twice but hit the office). The problem with this stance is, they also think that the material itself is enough and that it's a matter of time (and chance) until the world embraces it. Leaving it to "chance" is the worst a management can do.

In this view, I see that they could really use a name of a brand consultant, the type of Mr. Wally Olins (http://www.wallyolins.com - the site has a few interesting reads by itself). They have to deal with subtle branding questions. Any action, public event, press release needs to have a certain goal (that aids in the higher, corporate goals) and it needs to have the same exact high level of quality that the material (supposedly? :) has on the technical level. The whole sum of their techhnical and branding efforts should leave no room for questions, no doubt, but awe, excitement, potential and other notions that most current investors have instinctively ascribed to this brand.

I think, management currently deems that invetsting serious money in the R&D side is sufficient. I would dare to bet that the techies in ITKG feel as if branding is something that one can't touch and is therefore a caprice, something abstract unnecessary. I would dare to say that "JUST" a million spent in top-notch brand consulting and a facelift would exponentially increase the market value of the whole thing. So ElectriPlast in, let's say 5 years, would be not just the material, but a NAME, a brand, worth perhaps 3x as much as the whole company, patents and so on.

Coca-Cola, the single most-used example in branding, proves it otherwise. Today, the biggest value of the group is the BRAND itself. (I don't recall the exact numbers), but I know that the actual sales volume and factories, buildings and machinery make up only about 20% of the total value of the company. The rest is the brand. The fact that when you say refreshing drink, so-and-so many people on this planet think Coca-Cola. The fact that when you see red and white, almost everyone thinks Coca-Cola. Etc. I can't go on, but you get the principle.

The same questions apply here. I see a clear goal for a (possibly unexisting) brand manager of ITKG. In 3 years, when you say conductive polymer, people think Electriplast. When you say hot plastics, people think polymer. When you see warming gloves, etc. people think ElectriPlast. When people see a certain logo (which, by the way, including with all ITKG's current design on display, is done very poorly from the perspective of visual communication). Another important thing, understand that by design I do not mean personal aesthetical preferences (do I like their logo, web page etc.), but rather the specific set of rules that answer the question: does it have the effect it needs to have. I am certain their web page and all the logos were designed by not very competent "so-called" design studios or even in-house computer techies. They are done well, in the technical view, but poorly from the visual communication design perspective. I am certain there was no one that has a BFA degree in actual graphic/communication design. Believe me, it would show.

We come to the bottom line here. The business strategy is laid out. There is a prototype of an idea of a brand, but they do not know exactly what do do with it. A relatively small amount of money (compared to R&D) invested into a brand consultant / design agency is necessary and would be a wise decision. Talk to experts, but REAL experts not charlatans on the field, and they will convince management within a matter of minutes. A brand strategy that leans on the busines strategy will help boost the market and also do another thing - patch up the weaknesses we all feel are coming from the "negative" part of (possible?) investors. I guess one of the goals would also be to make the whole business seem reliable, solid. A problem with this is also, that currently it's not deemed necessary. Competition is weak or there is none. Fizzy drinks are another matter. But imagine they already work on this from day zero...

It can be done. I hope ITKG's management reads this and that it gives them food for thought. I hope it will make them at least discuss this with someone. I have a vision of the company's future (regardless of how the actual product sells) and it's BIG - you wouldn't be able to tell the ITKG of today from that one.

---

As for the negativity of some posters. They know a perfectly negative post will cause outrage and all these reactions with quite some anger in it. I would say everyone who reacts like that (even trying to defend something which by default doesn't allow a proper comeback) is a victim of a wicked and vicious childish game. Until you do it, the other side will be enjoying it, it's pure energy and they feed on it. Stop it, or even better - praise them for their "interesting" view. Time will tell, anyway.

And as far as the new investors are concerned, two points: I am sure that anyone with the least sense will know one from the other. Secondly, you can not be responsible for what other people will get from this forum. Do your part, write what you think (the positive sides), and they will create their own image. You will never be able to convince every new investor to have the exact same positive view as you do, it just doesn't work that way.

Another small comment for this being a "bogus" company, a scam. Everyone just analyze a bit, how much it costs to receive a patent. Multiply that by the 200+ applications. All this money for nothing, for air? Not to mention the strict rules that apply to actually receiving a patent (e.g. whatever you're applying for, must be technically proven, valid, workable). So in that sense - the basis is there, it's just a question if they will be efficient enough into bringing anything to a mass production. Also, proper focus and evaluating the risk/reward potential of the first few applications. I think that we already see what's going on here (automotive and air industry for the basis, then comes the mid- and low- markets with the thousands of other applications).

My views on why I AM here, still stand :)

Cheers to everyone,

K